VietnamVietnam

Myths, Realities, and the Use Myths, Realities, and the Use of a Historical Analogyof a Historical Analogy

I. Myths of VietnamI. Myths of Vietnam

► Overall story: The military knew how to win Overall story: The military knew how to win the war, but antiwar protests and inaccurate the war, but antiwar protests and inaccurate news reports (such as the portrayal of Tet as a news reports (such as the portrayal of Tet as a defeat) biased the public against continuing defeat) biased the public against continuing the fight. In the end, wealthy young college the fight. In the end, wealthy young college students ended up undermining the war effort students ended up undermining the war effort and even attacked the troops.and even attacked the troops. Problem: Mixes “untestable” counterfactual Problem: Mixes “untestable” counterfactual

propositions (what would have happened if only…) propositions (what would have happened if only…) with false but believable statements (myths).with false but believable statements (myths).

Solution: Identify what can be tested and look at Solution: Identify what can be tested and look at the data.the data.

A. The Myths of TetA. The Myths of Tet

1. The weak version: Tet proved the US 1. The weak version: Tet proved the US was losing the warwas losing the war Reality: Tet was a crushing victory for the Reality: Tet was a crushing victory for the

US/ARVN. The civil war/insurgency virtually US/ARVN. The civil war/insurgency virtually ended within a year of Tet (replaced by ended within a year of Tet (replaced by interstate war). NLF was 75% Southern interstate war). NLF was 75% Southern before Tet, only 20% Southern a year later.before Tet, only 20% Southern a year later.

2. The stronger version: Tet was a victory, 2. The stronger version: Tet was a victory, but the media’s portrayal of it turned but the media’s portrayal of it turned Americans against the war.Americans against the war.

a. The stronger version: a. The stronger version: DataData

a. The stronger version: a. The stronger version: DataData

b. The Stronger Version: b. The Stronger Version: DetailsDetails

►Reality: American support was Reality: American support was declining before Tet and continued to declining before Tet and continued to decline after Tet. Cumulative battle-decline after Tet. Cumulative battle-deaths match levels of support well: deaths match levels of support well: 15% drop in support each time 15% drop in support each time casualties increased by factor of 10 casualties increased by factor of 10 (100, 1000, 10,000). This explains (100, 1000, 10,000). This explains 90%90% of variance in opinion! of variance in opinion! Interesting: The military commander Interesting: The military commander

(Westmoreland) treated Tet as a defeat, (Westmoreland) treated Tet as a defeat, requesting 206,000 more soldiers after requesting 206,000 more soldiers after the battle was overthe battle was over

Battle-Deaths and Support for Battle-Deaths and Support for WarsWars

Iraq

Afghanistan (Support War)

Afghanistan (Not a Mistake)

B. The Myth of the “Silent B. The Myth of the “Silent Majority”Majority”

►Claim: Wealthy young college students Claim: Wealthy young college students were likely to oppose the war, while were likely to oppose the war, while blue-collar older workers were likely to blue-collar older workers were likely to support the war.support the war.

►Actually 3 claims:Actually 3 claims: Wealth = OppositionWealth = Opposition Youth = OppositionYouth = Opposition Education = OppositionEducation = Opposition

1. Test: 1. Test: Income Income and War and War SupportSupport

► Results vary Results vary from year to from year to year. General year. General trend = early trend = early opposition by opposition by poor, later poor, later opposition by opposition by rich, less rich, less opposition by opposition by middle classmiddle class

2. Test: Education and War 2. Test: Education and War SupportSupport

3. Test: Age and War 3. Test: Age and War SupportSupport

C. The Myths of ProtestC. The Myths of Protest1. Claim: The peace movement turned 1. Claim: The peace movement turned

people against the warpeople against the war Reality: Major demonstrations (10,000 or Reality: Major demonstrations (10,000 or

more people):more people):►Did not affect support for the warDid not affect support for the war►Did not affect Presidential popularityDid not affect Presidential popularity►Slightly Slightly increasedincreased support for President’s support for President’s

handling of warhandling of war Reality: Demonstrators were unpopular Reality: Demonstrators were unpopular

(average rating of 28 on a 100-point scale (average rating of 28 on a 100-point scale in 1968)in 1968)

Interesting: Little correlation between Interesting: Little correlation between attitude to protesters and support for warattitude to protesters and support for war

2. Claim: Protesters targeted 2. Claim: Protesters targeted military personnel military personnel

►Example: Protesters spitting on returning Example: Protesters spitting on returning soldiers (unconfirmed urban legend)soldiers (unconfirmed urban legend)

►Partly True: Protesters calling troops Partly True: Protesters calling troops namesnames Out of 380 articles in major papers (1965-71) Out of 380 articles in major papers (1965-71)

that discussed both protesters and troops:that discussed both protesters and troops:►No known cases of No known cases of returningreturning troops being targeted troops being targeted►6% of events had anti-troop element, usually 6% of events had anti-troop element, usually

confrontation between demonstrators and troops confrontation between demonstrators and troops called out to face themcalled out to face them: chants of “fascists” etc : chants of “fascists” etc (soldiers assigned to police duties)(soldiers assigned to police duties)

Interesting: Only small (13%) difference in Interesting: Only small (13%) difference in approval of student demonstrators between approval of student demonstrators between Vietnam vets and nonveterans in 1975Vietnam vets and nonveterans in 1975

D. The Partisan MythD. The Partisan Myth

►Claim: Democrats opposed the war, Claim: Democrats opposed the war, Republicans supported itRepublicans supported it

Test: Party and War SupportTest: Party and War Support

Another Test: Campaign AdsAnother Test: Campaign Ads

“Raymond Massey” -- 1964

“Vietnam” – 1968

“Young Vets” -- 1972

D. The Partisan MythD. The Partisan Myth

►Claim: Democrats opposed the war, Claim: Democrats opposed the war, Republicans supported itRepublicans supported it Reality: Each party was more likely to Reality: Each party was more likely to

oppose the war when the other party was oppose the war when the other party was in powerin power

E. The TV MythE. The TV Myth

►Claim: TV coverage of the gritty reality Claim: TV coverage of the gritty reality of war – or misrepresentation of reality of war – or misrepresentation of reality – caused viewers to turn against the – caused viewers to turn against the war.war.

1. Test: Gritty reality?1. Test: Gritty reality?

► 1965-1970 = 2300 evening news reports on 1965-1970 = 2300 evening news reports on VietnamVietnam Only 76 showed both fighting and casualties within Only 76 showed both fighting and casualties within

viewview

►Gear prevented most close-up shots (nearly Gear prevented most close-up shots (nearly impossible to film while prone) or impossible to film while prone) or instantaneous reporting in the field (Vietnam instantaneous reporting in the field (Vietnam was a videotape war).was a videotape war).

► All three networks agreed not to air All three networks agreed not to air recognizable images of US dead (feet only, not recognizable images of US dead (feet only, not faces)faces)

2. Test: A New Kind of War?2. Test: A New Kind of War?

►Compare Korea and Vietnam support Compare Korea and Vietnam support against casualties:against casualties:

Battle-Deaths and Support for Battle-Deaths and Support for WarsWars

Iraq

Afghanistan (Support War)

Afghanistan (Not a Mistake)

3. Test: Media Bias and Opinion 3. Test: Media Bias and Opinion JournalismJournalism

► Before Tet: Speakers in favor of war quoted Before Tet: Speakers in favor of war quoted 26.3% of the time, speakers against war 26.3% of the time, speakers against war quoted only 4.5% of the timequoted only 4.5% of the time

► After Tet: 28.4% supporters, 26.1% After Tet: 28.4% supporters, 26.1% opponentsopponents Opponents: 49% are government officials, 16% are Opponents: 49% are government officials, 16% are

reporters expressing opinions, 35% are antiwar reporters expressing opinions, 35% are antiwar activists or soldiersactivists or soldiers

What happened? Bias towards official sources What happened? Bias towards official sources change in reporting when officials turned against change in reporting when officials turned against the warthe war

► Media opposition actually lagged public Media opposition actually lagged public opposition! Opponents consistently opposition! Opponents consistently underrepresented compared to share of US underrepresented compared to share of US populationpopulation

F. Half-Myths: Partially True F. Half-Myths: Partially True Statements Accepted as Wholly Statements Accepted as Wholly

TrueTrue1. Claim: African-American soldiers bore 1. Claim: African-American soldiers bore

a disproportionate share of combat a disproportionate share of combat deathsdeaths Reality: Statement was correct when Reality: Statement was correct when

made in 1966 (24% of Army combat made in 1966 (24% of Army combat deaths in 1965!)deaths in 1965!)

Reality: Statement was incorrect at end of Reality: Statement was incorrect at end of war (12% of total combat deaths in war (12% of total combat deaths in Vietnam)Vietnam)

2. Claim: Politicians 2. Claim: Politicians micromanaged and limited micromanaged and limited

support for militarysupport for military► Micromanagement? Civilians micromanaged air Micromanagement? Civilians micromanaged air

campaign for political purposes (bargaining, fear of campaign for political purposes (bargaining, fear of escalation)escalation)

► Military resources? Westmoreland got everything he Military resources? Westmoreland got everything he asked for from 1965 to 1968.asked for from 1965 to 1968.

► Military Goals? Survey of 110 generals who served Military Goals? Survey of 110 generals who served found 70% never knew what the US objective was.found 70% never knew what the US objective was.

► Military attitudes to withdrawal? The military Military attitudes to withdrawal? The military likedliked “Vietnamization.”“Vietnamization.” 1974 survey of all generals who served: 58% wholly 1974 survey of all generals who served: 58% wholly

agreed with it, 36% conditionally agreed, only 6% agreed with it, 36% conditionally agreed, only 6% disagreed.disagreed.

The next year, the North defeated the South in a The next year, the North defeated the South in a matter of weeks.matter of weeks.

Implication: Military officers misjudged the political Implication: Military officers misjudged the political basis of defense.basis of defense.

II. Unanswered QuestionsII. Unanswered Questions

A.A. Could we have won? Some answers:Could we have won? Some answers:1.1. No – The NLF and NVA were prepared to accept higher No – The NLF and NVA were prepared to accept higher

casualties than the US. Escalation (conventional or casualties than the US. Escalation (conventional or nuclear) would have brought in China or the USSR on nuclear) would have brought in China or the USSR on the side of the NLF/NVA or caused a war in Europe.the side of the NLF/NVA or caused a war in Europe.

2.2. Yes – Escalation would have workedYes – Escalation would have worked

a.a. Conventional: Invade South Vietnam’s neighborsConventional: Invade South Vietnam’s neighbors

b.b. Nuclear weaponsNuclear weapons

3.3. Yes – Doing the same thing earlier would preserve Yes – Doing the same thing earlier would preserve supportsupport

a.a. Maximum force instead of incrementalism Maximum force instead of incrementalism

b.b. Strategic hamlets and local defense instead of Strategic hamlets and local defense instead of Search & DestroySearch & Destroy

4.4. Yes – Provide aid and air support in 1974-1975.Yes – Provide aid and air support in 1974-1975.

B. Why did North Vietnam keep B. Why did North Vietnam keep fighting? Especially since…fighting? Especially since…

► ““Losing” meant only the status quo, not Losing” meant only the status quo, not extinction or even loss of territory or political extinction or even loss of territory or political powerpower

►Morale was critical, especially during Morale was critical, especially during insurgency phaseinsurgency phase

► Prior willingness to compromise (Geneva 1954)Prior willingness to compromise (Geneva 1954)► Korean example suggested compromiseKorean example suggested compromise►US was really good at killing Vietnamese:US was really good at killing Vietnamese:

730,000 Communist battle-deaths730,000 Communist battle-deaths Hundreds of thousands of civilians killedHundreds of thousands of civilians killed North Vietnam + Communist-controlled areas of North Vietnam + Communist-controlled areas of

South = only 20 million people max!South = only 20 million people max! 3.6% battle-deaths is almost unprecedented (a few 3.6% battle-deaths is almost unprecedented (a few

examples in the World Wars – even Japan lost fewer examples in the World Wars – even Japan lost fewer in WW II)in WW II)

III. Comparison to IraqIII. Comparison to Iraq

►How appropriate is the Vietnam How appropriate is the Vietnam analogy?analogy?

►What are the strengths and What are the strengths and weaknesses of single-case historical weaknesses of single-case historical comparisons?comparisons?

A. Vietnam vs Iraq: BeginningA. Vietnam vs Iraq: Beginning

VietnamVietnam IraqIraq

TriggerTrigger South Vietnam South Vietnam rebellionrebellion

US attack on US attack on IraqIraq

Initial CombatInitial Combat GuerillaGuerilla ConventionalConventional

US US commitmentcommitment

Small, Small, increasedincreased

LargeLarge

Initial targetInitial target Rebel forceRebel force State State governmentgovernment

B. Vietnam vs Iraq: Military B. Vietnam vs Iraq: Military StatisticsStatistics

Vietnam, 1965 to Vietnam, 1965 to late 1968 (4 years)late 1968 (4 years)

Iraq, Fall 2003 to Iraq, Fall 2003 to Fall 2007 (4 years)Fall 2007 (4 years)

InsurgentsInsurgents 250,000 including NVA 250,000 including NVA regularsregulars

Perhaps 25,000Perhaps 25,000

US/Allied US/Allied TroopsTroops

600,000600,000 170,000 (+ contractors)170,000 (+ contractors)

Govt TroopsGovt Troops 1 million1 million 230,000 including police230,000 including police

Troop RATIOTroop RATIO 6:16:1 16:116:1

Insurgent Insurgent deathsdeaths

Perhaps 200,000Perhaps 200,000 15,000 - 55,000 (little 15,000 - 55,000 (little data)data)

US/Allied US/Allied deathsdeaths

20,00020,000 35003500

Govt deathsGovt deaths 60,00060,000 7500 (2004 to 2007)7500 (2004 to 2007)

Kill RATIOKill RATIO 1:2.51:2.5 1:1.4 to 1:51:1.4 to 1:5

Outside Outside support for support for insurgentsinsurgents

Regular military, arms, Regular military, arms, bases, superpower bases, superpower threatsthreats

VolunteersVolunteers

Monthly US KIA: Vietnam vs Monthly US KIA: Vietnam vs IraqIraq

Iraq to June 2008

C. GoalsC. Goals

►What was the US goal in Vietnam? What was the US goal in Vietnam? How would we know when it was How would we know when it was achieved?achieved?

►What is the US goal in Iraq? How will What is the US goal in Iraq? How will we know when it is achieved?we know when it is achieved?

D. What does Vietnam prove D. What does Vietnam prove about Iraq?about Iraq?

► Is Vietnam the right analogy, or would Is Vietnam the right analogy, or would Malaya (successful counterinsurgency) Malaya (successful counterinsurgency) or World War II (defeating dictators or World War II (defeating dictators and establishing democracy) be and establishing democracy) be better?better?

► Is there a system for picking the right Is there a system for picking the right historical analogy?historical analogy?

What do Americans think? What do Americans think? (2005)(2005)

D. What does Vietnam prove D. What does Vietnam prove about Iraq?about Iraq?

► Is Vietnam the right analogy, or would Is Vietnam the right analogy, or would Malaya (successful counterinsurgency) Malaya (successful counterinsurgency) or World War II (defeating dictators and or World War II (defeating dictators and establishing democracy) be better?establishing democracy) be better?

► Is there a system for picking the right Is there a system for picking the right historical analogy?historical analogy?

►What kind of data about the past do we What kind of data about the past do we need to make foreign policy decisions need to make foreign policy decisions in an uncertain present?in an uncertain present?

E. Iraq: Determinants of E. Iraq: Determinants of SupportSupport

1. Casualties: Steeper decline than 1. Casualties: Steeper decline than VietnamVietnam Prewar poll (Oct 2002):Prewar poll (Oct 2002):

►51% support war given 100 US dead51% support war given 100 US dead►46% support war given 1000 US dead46% support war given 1000 US dead►33% support war given 5000 US dead33% support war given 5000 US dead

Intrawar polls: Intrawar polls: ►1% approval loss/100 US deaths (to 2004)1% approval loss/100 US deaths (to 2004)►1500 dead (early 2005) = same support as 1500 dead (early 2005) = same support as

Vietnam at time of Tet (20,000 dead)Vietnam at time of Tet (20,000 dead)

2. Public Support: Vietnam vs. Iraq2. Public Support: Vietnam vs. Iraq

Average Average effect of effect of being…being…

On Vietnam On Vietnam SupportSupport

On Iraq SupportOn Iraq Support

YoungerYounger IncreaseIncrease Increase ~Increase ~

More More educatededucated

IncreaseIncrease Mixed ^Mixed ^

WealthierWealthier IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

MaleMale IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

WhiteWhite IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

~ Average – initial relationship was reverse

^ Increase up to “some college,” decrease thereafter

2. Public Support: Vietnam vs. Iraq2. Public Support: Vietnam vs. Iraq

Average Average effect of effect of being…being…

On Vietnam On Vietnam SupportSupport

On Iraq SupportOn Iraq Support

YoungerYounger IncreaseIncrease Increase ~Increase ~

More More educatededucated

IncreaseIncrease Mixed ^Mixed ^

WealthierWealthier IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

MaleMale IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

WhiteWhite IncreaseIncrease IncreaseIncrease

RepublicanRepublican Decrease *Decrease * IncreaseIncrease

DemocratDemocrat Increase *Increase * DecreaseDecrease~ Average – initial relationship was reverse

^ Increase up to “some college,” decrease thereafter

* Averages – relationship reversed (but gap smaller) after 1969

3. What does the public 3. What does the public know?know?

a. Casualties – mostly a. Casualties – mostly informedinformed

► Question: Since the Question: Since the start of military action in start of military action in Iraq, about how many Iraq, about how many US soldiers have been US soldiers have been killed? To the best of killed? To the best of your knowledge, have your knowledge, have there been around 500, there been around 500, around 1500, around around 1500, around 2500, or around 3500 2500, or around 3500 military deaths in Iraq?military deaths in Iraq? Source: Pew Research Source: Pew Research

CenterCenter Field Date - Apr 7-16, Field Date - Apr 7-16,

20062006

500500 4%4%

15001500 16%16%

2500 2500 (correct)(correct) 53%53%

35003500 19%19%

Other / Other / Refuse / Refuse /

Don’t Don’t KnowKnow

8%8%

Recent Decline in KnowledgeRecent Decline in Knowledge

b. Details – Uninformedb. Details – Uninformed

► Terrorism -- How many 9/11 hijackers were Terrorism -- How many 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis – none, some, or most? (2002)Iraqis – none, some, or most? (2002) 44% said some or most (In 2006: 24%)44% said some or most (In 2006: 24%) 17% said none (CORRECT)17% said none (CORRECT)

►Geography – 2/3 of Americans age 18-24 Geography – 2/3 of Americans age 18-24 stillstill can’t find Iraq on a map (Feb 2006)can’t find Iraq on a map (Feb 2006)

►WMD – Post-major ops poll (June 2003)WMD – Post-major ops poll (June 2003) 33% thought US forces had found WMD (In 2006: 33% thought US forces had found WMD (In 2006:

26% said Saddam had them when the US invaded)26% said Saddam had them when the US invaded) 22% thought Iraq had used WMD against US troops!22% thought Iraq had used WMD against US troops!